Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship Announcements

Tobias Schaefers, EBS Business School, Germany

Joe Cobbs, Northern Kentucky University, USA

Mark D. Groza, Northern Illinois University, USA

AMS World Marketing CongressMelbourne, VIC, AustraliaJuly 17-20, 2013

2

Sponsorship-Linked Marketing Sponsorship = marketing communication instrument (Cornwell and Maignan 1998)

Communication through sponsorship & communication about a sponsorship(Cornwell 1995)

Announcing the initiation of a sponsorship Communicate advance details about a sponsorship relationship

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 2013

Asics has agreed a three-year deal to become the

new title sponsor of the Los Angeles Marathon.

Under the agreement, the sports apparel and

footwear firm will replace fellow Japanese

company Honda as the lead sponsor of

the event through 2015. […](SportsBusiness.com)

Asics assumes LA Marathon

sponsorhsip[…] The exclusive rights deal, worth $559m over seven years from the 2014-15 season,

sets a new record for a football club sponsorship contract. […]

(Financial Times)

GM in record Man Utd sponsorship deal

3

Sponsorship Announcements - Research Research on sponsorship announcements has mixed results:

Announcements of a sponsorship enhance stock prices of sponsoring firms (Cornwell et al. 2005)

High-dollar, international sponsorships can depress firm value (Cobbs et al. 2012)

Differing results among sports and deviations between new and renewed sponsorship announcements (Clark et al. 2009)

Research restrictions: Only considered at a generic level, ignoring how a sponsorship is announced Emphasis on investors‘ reactions to announcements, overlooking consumers Variety of theoretical perspectives (e.g., mere exposure, balance theory, articulation

theory) on sponsorships and consumers, but neglecting temporal effects

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 2013

4

Construal Level Theory (CLT) Construals describe an individual‘s perceptions and interpretations of

information (Kim and John 2008; Trope and Liberman 2010)

High-level construals (abstract, simple, essential features)

Low-level construals (concrete, contextualized, unique features)

Individuals evaluate information in their environment with different degrees of abstraction (i.e., close events generally have concrete nature)

The same information can be interpreted at different construal levels by different individuals, depending on the default Personal Level of Construal (PLC)

CLT offers a theoretical framework for interpreting psychological reactions to different forms of sponsorship announcements

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 2013

5

Hypotheses

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 2013

H1: Concrete (vs. abstract) sponsorship announcements… (a) more positive attitude toward sponsoring brand, (b) higher trust in the sponsoring brand, (c) higher willingness to recommend sponsoring brand, (d) higher purchase intention for the sponsoring brand.

• More information about the sponsorship relationship results in improved sponsorship evaluation (Coppetti et al. 2009; Cornwell et al. 2006)

H2: Concrete (vs. abstract) sponsorship announcements… (a) more positive attitude toward sponsored event, (b) higher trust in sponsored event, (c) higher willingness to recommend (d) higher purchase intention

• Improved evaluation for more information spills over to sponsored event

(Groza et al., 2012; Simion & Ruth, 1998)

H3: Consumers with high (vs. low) personal level of construal (PLC) will evaluate sponsoring brand and sponsored event more (less) positive when faced with concrete (vs. abstract) announcement.

• Mismatch leads to increased processing: Concrete information about sponsorship but high level PLC communication draws consumers to central route

6

Empirical Study

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 2013

Study 2 2 x 2 between-subjects experimental design

IVs: Construal level of the sponsorship announcement (abstract/concrete) Personal level of contrual (PLC) – median split (5-item scale, Vallacher & Wegner, 1989)

MANOVA with DVs: Attitude toward the brand/event (α=.96, .96) Trust in the brand/event (α=.91, .96) Willingness to recommend brand/event (α=.96, .96) Purchase intent (use) for brand/event (α=.95, .97)

Sample of 179 business school students (Mage=24.6 yrs, SD 7.0; 49.7% female)

Successful manipulation check

7

Results

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 2013

H1: Concrete (vs. abstract) sponsorship announcements will lead to (a) more positive attitude, (b) higher trust, (c) higher willingness to recommend, and (d) higher purchase intention…for the sponsoring brand.

H2: Concrete (vs. abstract) sponsorship announcements will lead to (a) a more positive attitude, (b) a higher trust, (c) a higher willingness to recommend, and (d) a higher use intention…for the sponsored event.

MANOVA: Construal level main effect (F8,168= 2.39; p = .018); interaction with PLC (F8,168=1.932; p = .058)

H3: High-level PLC will lead to more favorable evaluations of sponsor and sponsored event with concrete information provided in announcement.

8

Results, p < .05

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 2013

A. Trust in the sponsoring brand

B. Willingness to recommend the sponsoring brand

C. Purchase intention of the sponsoring brand

D. Attitude toward the sponsored event

4.00

4.40

4.80

5.20

5.60

6.00

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

3.40

3.80

4.20

4.60

5.00

5.40

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

3.00

3.40

3.80

4.20

4.60

5.00

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

5.00

5.40

5.80

6.20

6.60

7.00

CLAabstract

CLAconcrete

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

Abstract announcement

concrete announcement

PLC high(abstract thinkers)

PLC low(concrete thinkers)

9

Discussion & Implications

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 2013

CLT explains aspects of consumers‘ reactions to sponsorship announcements

Overall, presentation of content at low construal level preferable to abstract content Interaction effect occurs for high PLC

Relevance of CLT in sponsorship-linked communication Preferred high-level thinking if presenting concrete content Low-level thinking preferred for abstract content

10

Limitations & Outlook

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 2013

Limitations: Student samples

Online laboratory environment

Single context (marathon)

Self-report scales for DVs

Outlook: Priming to influence PLC

Additional dimensions of CLT (temporal, social & geographical distance)

Schaefers / Cobbs / Groza | Construal Level Effects in Sponsorship | AMS World Marketing Congress, Melbourne | July 17-20, 201311

Effects

Table 1. Univariate between-subjects effectsSponsoring brand Sponsored brand

F p Partial ² F p Partial ²Main Effects

Construal level of announce ment (CLA)

Attitude toward… 12.443 .001 .066 8.722 .004 .047Trust in… 4.723 .031 .026 5.185 .024 .029Willingness to recommend 3.639 .058 .020 6.130 .014 .034

Purchase intention 4.576 .034 .025 5.612 .019 .031Personal level of construal (PLC)

Attitude toward… .926 .337 .005 2.672 .104 .015Trust in… .997 .319 .006 .370 .544 .002Willingness to recommend .549 .460 .003 .341 .560 .002

Purchase intention .164 .686 .001 .364 .547 .002Interaction

CLA PLC

Attitude toward… 1.938 .166 .011 3.944 .049 .022Trust in… 4.344 .039 .024 2.519 .114 .014Willingness to recommend 5.225 .023 .029 .045 .833 .000

Purchase intention 5.140 .025 .029 .567 .452 .003